Remanded

Naseema.C.M, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2022WP(C)/3084/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refrained from reversing the deposit of land acquisition compensation by the Special Tahsildar due to a title objection by a rival claimant. Instead, it directed the petitioner to file an application before the District Court to evaluate title documents and release funds if no other claimants exist.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to produce title documents; District Court to evaluate and release amounts if no other rival claimants exist.

Naseema.C.M, Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3084 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NASEEMA.C.M, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.ALI.K.V, NAJU MAHAL, THERUR PALAYODE, KEEZHALLUR VILLAGE, EDAYANNUR.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670595.

¶8

BY ADVS. R.SURENDRAN S.MAYUKHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR-670002.

¶12

3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LAND ACQUISITION) AIRPORT NO 2, MATTANNUR, KANNUR-670702.

¶13

SMT. MABLE .C .KURIAN, SR.G.P

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 3084 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning the action of the third respondent – Special Tahsildar, in depositing the amounts under the Award relating to certain properties acquired from her, under the provisions of Section 77(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (for short 'Fair Compensation Act'), before the competent District Court.

¶19

Smt.S.Mayukha - learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently asserted that there were no disputes raised by any person regarding the amounts under the Award and consequently, that the action of the third respondent in having deposited the same before the competent Civil Court is illegal and unlawful. She, therefore, prayed that the third respondent be directed to release the amounts to her client without any further delay.

¶20

The learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Mable C.Kurian, in response, submitted that the deposit by the third respondent before the competent Civil Court was necessitated

¶21

WP(C) NO. 3084 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

because the title documents showed that the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner had obtained the property from his vendor, who had executed it on behalf of a minor; and therefore, that he was asked to submit an indemnity bond, if and should any claim is to be raised against it in future. She submitted that since the petitioner refused to do so, the amounts were deposited before the competent Civil Court.

¶24

I must say upfront that, going by the specific provisions of the Fair Compensation Act and in particular, Section 77 thereof, unless it there a dispute raised by a rival claimant, a deposit as mandated under Sub Section (2) thereof, cannot be normally done.

¶25

In the case at hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader explains that the third respondent made the deposit because the petitioner refused to execute an indemnity bond with respect to any claim to be brought on the property in future, solely because his prior predecessor-in-interest had obtained the property from his vendor, who had executed the document on behalf of a minor.

¶26

I am not sure if this stand of the 3 rd respondent is proper, particularly because the petitioner asserts that, at the

¶27

WP(C) NO. 3084 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

time when the prior title document was executed, the person in question was not a minor.

¶30

7. However, since the deposit has already been made, I do not think that it will be prudent for this Court to try to set it in reverse, by ordering the amounts to be re-transmitted to the 3 rd respondent; but, on the contrary, am of the firm opinion that it will be better for the petitioner also that I direct the learned District Court to consider her request for release of the amounts, if there are no other claimants.

¶31

In the afore perspective, I order this writ petition in the following manner:

¶32

a) The petitioner will produce the original title documents before the District Court as per the applicable procedure; and, in such event, the said Court will evaluate the same and proceed to decide whether the amounts can be released to her, if there are no other objections raised by any other rival claimant.

¶33

b) For the afore purpose, I leave liberty to the petitioner to move the District Court with an appropriate application for advancing the reference case to a near date, so that the matter can then be resolved, on the amounts being released

¶34

WP(C) NO. 3084 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

to her in terms of the afore directions.

¶37

Needless to say, the learned District Court will endevour to dispose of the matter as early as possible without any avoidable delay.

¶38

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶39

stu/rp

¶40

WP(C) NO. 3084 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3084/2022

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 4-12-1991 REGISTERED AS NO.2392 OF 1991 OF SRO MATTANNUR EXECUTED BY CHAMBIL MAKKUNNATH KUNHAMINA
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION EXTENDING THE TIME LIMIT IN PUBLISHING AWARD DATED 6- 3-2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 24-5- 2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AS G.O. (P)NO.56/2020
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-3-2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.4763 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 10-11- 2021 IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO.1264 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 17-11- 2021 IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO.1264 OF 2020
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1-12-2021 OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY IN L.A.R.R 159 OF 2021 ARISING FROM LAC NO.18/19
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.3 OF 2021 DATED 1-11-2021 BEARING NUMBER REF.B/1279/21 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT

Naseema.C.M, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseema.C.M, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashique Ali Vs State of Kerala

Sojan Jacob @ Sojan Vs District Collector

A.A. Pareed, Vs State of Kerala

Green Worth Rocks and Sands Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Jasmine Joseph Vs the Sub Registrar

Babu.K Vs State of Kerala